I don't know what everyone else says. In the past I've purchased it for major changes to the team (RR being hired) or major changes in the game (custom playbooks). I don't really see any changes that would affect my game play, which is why I'm asking.

So they have MSU's offense (new QB, new WR's, etc) higher rated than their defense?? That would make me want to buy this game for it's "accuracy"

Skimmed through the ratings and it looks like defenses are lower rated across the board...I think I only saw one team with a defense rating above 95 (USC with a 99), while there were many many teams with offenses above 95.

Note: You guys do know that EA doesn't create the overall rankings...right?

They're based on the player ratings and more emphasis is put on starters.

A team with 11 starters at 90...and a bunch of reserves at 60 could have a better overall rating than a team with 11 starters at 85 and a bench full of 80s. The latter is the better unit, but the game may not read it like that (that may be a dramatic example, but it IS weighted).

Also, EA traditionally doesn't "downgrade" players...so if they hyped a kid as a sophomore and he didn't play well, he'll still be good his junior and senior year.

I wouldn't be shocked to see someone like JT Floyd as like a 92 in the game. No disrespect to JT, but that's a big stretch. Someone like Craig Roh, who's started since his freshman year is also likely to be overrated in the game.

Every year I adjust the ratings and make them as realistic as I possibily can compared to other players. I wait until the names come out and then I adjust the top 50 players at each position, and then do Michigan based off that. I also use two pre-season magazines to help, so it's not biased.

The biggest reason I adjust is to boost the freshman and redshirt freshman. With the way you can recruit in the game, guys like Keith Heitzman and Chris Bryant will NEVER see the field in 4 years...in fact, they often get cut. You can make them a respectable rating in the high 70s as redshirt freshman and they eventually become starters or role players as upperclassmen.

ohio probably should be a five simply because we will never here the end of it if they are not. I feel like Miami should be a five. There previous eight seasons or so have been only mediocre in a relatively weak acc.

The only time when stars are relevant is recruiting in Dynasty mode. There are 14 6* schools, and I wouldn't be surprised if Oregon is one of the 14 biggest recruiting draws for high school kids right now.

The only 6* ratings I would quibble with are Boise State (even with their success, they still can't recruit with the big boys) and Miami (not a recruiting powerhouse recently).

It certainly doesn't track the consensus polls, but it's not too silly (other than Notre Dame at #6, obviously). And remember, these are based only on video game player ratings - they overrate recruiting hype (as opposed to performance, which leads them to overrate disappointing 4* and 5* recruits - e.g. Notre Dame) and don't take into account things like coaching acumen and experience.

Honestly the only justification I can see for this is that they want no one to be less than 80. They need a better scale if everyone is in the 90s. If someone's offense is a 45, well, they should play better. If I can autoplay a game against a terrible team and have it not be a blowout, there's something wrong there.

A few weeks ago, I think you made a comment, along with other people, on how people were still playing NCAA 2006 to this very day. After this, I frantically looked everywhere for my old Xbox and NCAA 2006 game, to no avail.

EA has historically been pretty bad at aggregating player ratings (or, at the very least, the aggregated rating isn't a simple average). But I think part of the reason for this is that a team's aggregate strength isn't necessarily just the average of their offense and defense. For instance, EA might rate Michigan's offense as better than 94/100 of the other offenses in the NCAA and their defense better than 91/100 of the defenses. But since it's hard to have both a good offense and a good defense, this might make their team better than 97/100 of the teams in the NCAA.

Obviously some other factors go into these numbers, but I think this is the general idea.

I have a soft spot for '07. Your receivers could actually burn a corner if he had the speed, and playing with option teams is SO much fun. Pat White was an absolute beast. I could play with WVU or Michigan all day

Terrible. I will not buy NCAA this year, for the first time in a while. I will take a long hard look at Madden though. I think they have a new physics engine this year, but I don't think they have fantasy draft, which kinda sucks.

First, NCAA 12 was an excellent game that incorporated a lot of new features like Coaching Carousel and Conference Changes. The issue was the gameplay which after reading reviews of the demo sounds like the gameplay is improved, if not amazing.

Second, don't buy the game on release. Wait two weeks for truly dedicated individuals to re-do their rosters and adjust likenessess (Denard w/dreads), ratings, names, etc. and also for a decent slider set to emerge.

EDIT: I realize "excellent" may be a bit of a leap. It wasn't excellent, but it was good outside of the super-jumping LBs and psychic DBs, and the problems running screens, options, or play action. Okay, fine, the gameplay was bad. But, COACHING CAROUSEL. CONFERENCE REALIGNMENT. I loved that ish.

My biggest issue w/this game is the amount of time they force you to spend on recruiting. In the old ones, you would just put recruiting points on players. Now you have to work on each player individually and each one take a few each week and it's way too much of a time committment/

I used to love recruiting but now if im playing several seasons I hate it. 30 minutes every week if you really want to get dialed in. Just give me an end of the year only recruiting option so it doesnt take 17 hours to play a season.

These ratings are a joke. I wont make a comment about Michigans, but LSU with 99 offense? MSU with a better offensive rating than their defensive rating? According to player ratings, MSU's best player is the kicker, and William Gholston isn't even in the top 10. I really hope these are still a work in progress